While I recognise that theists are not necessarily creationists, much as subscribers to atheists are not necessarily subscribers to evolution, it
sounds like you are saying that creationism doesn't rely on a deity as a creator.

Is this correct? If so - and, for that matter, if not - could you explain?

While I recognise that theists are not necessarily creationists, much as subscribers to atheists are not necessarily subscribers to evolution, it
sounds like you are saying that creationism doesn't rely on a deity as a creator.

Is this correct? If so - and, for that matter, if not - could you explain?

edit on 11/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason
given)

edit on 11/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)

It does not require a diety, a deity by deffinition is something super natural that wills stuff into being and what not. Man has created life yet he
is not a deity.
What is more is that evolution and creationalisim are not opposites or a dichotomy. If one was right it would not disproove the other. Just like how
you can explain how an airplane works does not mean nobody created it.

Creationists, whether they realize it or not, all believe in magic. They believe that a divine being used supernatural "powers" will life into
existence typically using dirt as a building material.

Creationists also reject most of science out right, everything from the fossil record to the obvious genetic evidence of Evolution must be ignored or
misrepresented as a straw-man.

I used to be a Creationist so I know how it works. It was an entirely closed-loop mindset that involved going to all the wrong websites and being
spoon-fed talking points and specialized strawmen. There were also a lot of quote-mines and arguments from authority where Creationists would take
comments from actual scientists out of context to disprove Evolution. I've noticed that Creationists are often the only ones that do this, they tend
to quote authority while people defending Evolution tend to present Evidence as the authority.

It is very hard to break free of creationist brainwashing but it can be done if you're willing to look at the actual evidence for Evolution and
examine the various lies and fallacies constantly being pumped out by Creationism.

Please note that Venter created a fragment of genetic code, and inserted it into already living cells, which then propogated it - the cells were
always living, it's just the first time that anyone's managed to get them to incorporate fully synthetic codes. The article misrepresents it as
creating life, but it's no more creating life than that time they added bits of thylacine DNA to mouse embryos was reviving the thylacine.

Creationists, whether they realize it or not, all believe in magic. They believe that a divine being used supernatural "powers" will life into
existence typically using dirt as a building material.

Not true

Creationists also reject most of science out right, everything from the fossil record to the obvious genetic evidence of Evolution must be ignored or
misrepresented as a straw-man.

Not true at all en.wikipedia.org...'s_religious_views
Nicholas Copernicus- Catholic
Michael Faraday - Christian
I can go on and on.

I used to be a Creationist so I know how it works. It was an entirely closed-loop mindset that involved going to all the wrong websites and being
spoon-fed talking points and specialized strawmen. There were also a lot of quote-mines and arguments from authority where Creationists would take
comments from actual scientists out of context to disprove Evolution. I've noticed that Creationists are often the only ones that do this, they tend
to quote authority while people defending Evolution tend to present Evidence as the authority.

It is very hard to break free of creationist brainwashing but it can be done if you're willing to look at the actual evidence for Evolution and
examine the various lies and fallacies constantly being pumped out by Creationism.

So you believe what you are told big deal. You were told life was created by a god or whatever and you gobbled it up, then someone told you about
evolution and you ate that up to, pat yourself on the back.

Yes it is. All creation myths contain magic. Anyone who is a Creationist believes that life was CREATED and unless we're dealing with someone who
thinks life was created by alien technology than we are dealing with magic. this is especially true when talking about the Biblical Creation account
in which God commands life to come forth from the Earth.

I can go on and on.

Isaac Newton was not a Creationist and nothing he discovered has anything to do with Evolution. Perhaps I should have clarified, Creationists reject
those sciences that contradict their myth, Newtonian mechanics does not violate anything that Creationists hold sacred. However many Creationists
reject the vast majority of geology, paleontology, archeology, and cosmology. It's about as anti-science a movement as can be imagined.

then someone told you about evolution and you ate that up to, pat yourself on the back.

It didn't work like that at all. See when I was a Creationist I was spoon-fed lot's of fallacies and straw-men but many years later when I finally
decided to give Evolution a chance I found it fallacy free. Instead of fallacies attacking the religious I found physical fossil evidence, undeniable
genetic evidence and instances of directly observed speciation. The evidence was all there for me to see for myself without needing someone to tell me
and it stood on its own two legs without needing to attack Creationism. After I'd seen the evidence for myself I decided to look back at all the
Creationist claims I'd believed to find that all of them had been debunked time and time again using the same evidence I'd just been looking at. So
no, it wasn't being told that caused me to accept evolution.

Yes it is. All creation myths contain magic. Anyone who is a Creationist believes that life was CREATED and unless we're dealing with someone who
thinks life was created by alien technology than we are dealing with magic.

Well you said aliens not me, but right there is an example of creation without magic.

Isaac Newton was not a Creationist and nothing he discovered has anything to do with Evolution.

"The most beautiful system of the Sun, Planets and Comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent being. All variety of
created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the
Lord God."-Newton

So let me guess by creator Newton meant something different?

However many Creationists reject the vast majority of geology, paleontology, archeology, and cosmology. It's about as anti-science a movement as can
be imagined.

Again not really true. There are many different kinds of creationalisim. They range from god to aliens to individual souls themselves being the
creator, there are also young-world and old-world creationists. Im not saying that i subscribe to any of these but to throw such a broad term out
there is really not accurate.
There are even divisions among evolutionists, The Neanderthal is gone but nobody knows why, were they killed off, climate change, did they interbreed
with Cro-Magnon? Nobody knows.

No. He means exactly what he means. He isn't a Creationist though, they didn't exist in Newton's time. There was no scientific theory competing
with the Biblical creation story, Newton didn't have the fossil record, genetics, and the wealth of other evidence that supports modern Evolutionary
theory. Creationism is a relatively young political-religious movement, it didn't exist in Newton's day.

They range from god to aliens to individual souls themselves being the creator, there are also young-world and old-world creationists

All of them reject science on some level or another though they pick and choose which sciences they think support their idea and they also pervert or
ignore aspects of various scientific discoveries or ideas. For instance the use of archeological finds such as the Baghdad battery to uphold ancient
astronaut "theory". Perhaps I was being too general but when I say Creationist I typically refer to Old or Young Earth variety of Biblical
creationists, those are certainly the majority at least here in the USA.

Nobody knows.

Right. We're not sure yet and we're waiting for conclusive evidence as to the fate of the Neandrathal. No one in science is suggesting we have all
the answers and, in fact, science is always in pursuit of those answers but in the meantime we admit we just don't have them yet. Some Creationists
like to insert their God into these sorts of gaps in our knowledge or claim that because we don't have every last link in an evolutionary transition
somehow this voids all of Evolution.

No. He means exactly what he means. He isn't a Creationist though, they didn't exist in Newton's time.

Right by "lord the creator" he meant something else-BS

There was no scientific theory competing with the Biblical creation story,

False again,
Anaximander in the era of BC thought that the first animals came from the sea and then turned into land animals, the point was the theory of evolution
has been around a looooooong time.

Newton didn't have the fossil record, genetics, and the wealth of other evidence that supports modern Evolutionary theory.

Darwin didn't have much better of a fossil record than newton had, neither had much in the field of genetics.

For instance the use of archeological finds such as the Baghdad battery to uphold ancient astronaut "theory". Perhaps I was being too general but
when I say Creationist I typically refer to Old or Young Earth variety of Biblical creationists, those are certainly the majority at least here in the
USA.

Biblical creatonist is something else completley and there are even divisions among them.

Some Creationists like to insert their God into these sorts of gaps in our knowledge or claim that because we don't have every last link in an
evolutionary transition somehow this voids all of Evolution.

The bilical creationists insert god into everything, from shopping for bread to getting up in the morning. It is not that we don't have every last
link it is that the more we find the less it makes sense.

Being a Creationist entails more than merely believing in a Creator. One needs to be post-Darwin in order to be a Creationist and in many ways one
must be post-consensus on Evolution to be a Creationist. One needs to reject Evolution in order to be a Creationist. The definition you're using is
far too inclusive.

Anaximander in the era of BC thought that the first animals came from the sea and then turned into land animals, the point was the theory of evolution
has been around a looooooong time.

I know of anaximander. His idea was sort of ahead of its time but it was certainly not a very scientific idea, it most definitely did not follow the
guidelines of modern science and did not accumulate the wealth of evidence that modern Evolutionary theory has behind it. The merit of a theory really
is the weight of the evidence behind it and while Anaximander may have been on the right track his idea never went mainstream and certainly didn't
challenge Biblical Creation (as the Bible had not yet been written).

I never said that a belief that life was created was the same thing as Creationism, again I think your definition is far to inclusive here.

Darwin didn't have much better of a fossil record than newton had, neither had much in the field of genetics.

This is at least partially true however I fail to see what it has to do with anything. Darwin had enough to go on to propose the theory of Evolution
and while he was alive it was considered very controversial particularly by the religious. It is precisely this controversy that laid the foundations
of Creationism, in particular once Evolution had enough evidence that they had to put in schools this catalyzed the religious to get their
unscientific ideas put back into science classes. This was mostly AFTER Darwin when the genetic evidence and fossil evidence for evolution became far
more robust.

Biblical creatonist is something else completley and there are even divisions among them.

In my experience most Creationists rely on the Bible or some other religious text. There are differences however there definitely is anti-science
sentiment and pro-myth sentiment at the root of most, if not all, forms of Creationism. They may differ in which scientific principals and theories
they reject and which they accept but none of them accept Evolutionary theory.

When I was a Creationist I was an Old Earther but long after I stopped being a Creationist I was still very much anti-science and avoided looking at
any of the evidence for Evolution. A good deal of the brainwashing I received at various internet sites was in regards to distrusting science and
scientific methods (such as Carbon dating) as entirely unreliable. There is even a very conspiracy theory-esque vibe to a great deal of Creationist
propaganda (hence the very existence of this particularly board/forum Origins and Creationism conspiracy).

1) Be Post-Darwin - in other words you can't have been a Creationist until after Darwin's death or, at the very earliest, anytime after the
publication of The Origin of Species.

2) Deny Evolution - One must deny that evolution explains bio-diversity. Now it's worth noting that Creationists are allowed to believe in what they
call "Micro" Evolution, meaning the obvious and undeniable genetic changes that happen from generation to generation and lead to different breeds of
dogs for instance.

3) Deny Abiogenesis and believe in a Creator - One must deny that life arose naturally without the intervention of an outside intelligence (aliens,
gods, etc). One must proactively believe that something intervened to cause life OR to cause biodiversity typically via magic or some unknown
technology (aliens).

4) One must either be deceitful or be deceived or both.

That's about it really as far as I'm concerned. There are other aspects that are common to creationists but these are the big ones that fit a good 99%
of Creationists and indeed fit 100% of Creationists that I've interacted with both as a Creationist and later on after I accepted
Evolution.

1) Be Post-Darwin - in other words you can't have been a Creationist until after Darwin's death or, at the very earliest, anytime after the
publication of The Origin of Species.

And where does this come from?

2) Deny Evolution - One must deny that evolution explains bio-diversity. Now it's worth noting that Creationists are allowed to believe in what they
call "Micro" Evolution, meaning the obvious and undeniable genetic changes that happen from generation to generation and lead to different breeds of
dogs for instance.

So you are now in charge of writting the rules of what creationists are and are not allowed to believe in? lol @ the irony of using the intelligent
design of dog breeds as an example of evolution.

3) Deny Abiogenesis and believe in a Creator - One must deny that life arose naturally without the intervention of an outside intelligence (aliens,
gods, etc). One must proactively believe that something intervened to cause life OR to cause biodiversity typically via magic or some unknown
technology (aliens).

You should really write a thread about all this, because there are many creationists here that really need someone like you to lay down the law of
what they are allowed to think and what not.

This thread IS about writing what you think creationists believe, and how you (as an individual) define a creationist. So as far as this thread goes,
his(?) post was perfectly appropriate.

You say that you believe that it simply means that live was created, and so a creationist may believe in evolution and abiogenesis, then, provided
that the processes were intended; or that an alien put life together in a lab; or that some deity willed life into existence species by species, and
so on. This is not necessarily the same as other people's definitions (hence my reason for starting this thread. I am not redundant!), which are
often, if only for convenience' sake, rather more specific.

And as far as dogs go... are things like hip dysplasia in alsations and retrievers "intelligent design"? What about psychosis is jack russels, or
deafness in dalmations? How about dalmatian's flawed protein metabolism chain, leading to hyperuricaemia?

You say that you believe that it simply means that live was created, and so a creationist may believe in evolution and abiogenesis, then, provided
that the processes were intended; or that an alien put life together in a lab; or that some deity willed life into existence species by species, and
so on.

I dont have issue with that i was just pointing out that saying "to be a creationist you must believe in _______" is false. That statement is juat
as accurate as saying if you believe in evolution you can't believe in god.

And as far as dogs go... are things like hip dysplasia in alsations and retrievers "intelligent design"? What about psychosis is jack russels, or
deafness in dalmations? How about dalmatian's flawed protein metabolism chain, leading to hyperuricaemia?

I did not say it was perfect i just said it was intelligent. All those breeds did not pop up on their own it was guided by man. I was just noting the
irony i was not saying dog breeds are any sory of proof of anything

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.